Ex Parte H. Shih - Page 13


               Appeal No. 2006-0650                                                                      Page 13                  
               Application No. 10/007,613                                                                                         

                      The problem with this construction is that claims 39, 71, and 80, by Appellant’s                            
               own admission, would place the system at two different temperatures at the same time.                              
               Response filed 4/16/2004, Page 21.  We don’t understand how this configuration could                               
               exist.  It is like claiming a milk product which is simultaneously both frozen solid and in                        
               the form of warm milk.  One way out of this conflict would be to construe the claims to                            
               contain two separate articles, each “characterized by” (i.e., having the property of) one                          
               of the two different temperatures recited in the claims.  Although the claims refer to “one                        
               or more articles,” the antecedent basis in the “wherein clause” does not clearly express                           
               this two-article requirement.  The examiner’s position that the “wherein clause” is a                              
               functional limitation of the system may resolve the apparent conflict, but surely flies in                         
               the face of the plain language (“characterized by”) of the claims.                                                 
                      The purpose of § 112, second paragraph, is to ensure that the claim scope is                                
               clear.  The “wherein clause” in describing the system to be characterized by two                                   
               different temperature ranges does not clearly define the scope of the claim.  It is not                            
               evident how the system can be simultaneously be at a “first elevated temperature” and                              
               a “second elevated temperature” where enzyme is present.  To the contrary, the                                     
               specification indicates that the first and second temperatures are experienced by the                              
               system at different times.  Since claims 39-51, 53-55, 63, 71, 73, 74, and 80 are “not                             
               amenable to construction” and are “insolubly ambiguous,” we find these claims to be                                
               indefinite under § 112, second paragraph.  Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,                               
               417 F.3d 1342, 1347, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1804 (Fed. Cir. 2005).                                                        
                      Claims 39-51, 53-56, 63, 71, 73, 74, 80, and 82 are further rejected under § 112,                           
               second paragraph, as being indefinite in the recitation of the “means for” limitations.                            





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007